PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. ROGER PEREZ AND DANILO PEREZ, appellants.

G.R. No. 179154

July 31, 2009
QUISUMBING, J

FACTS:

On appeal is the Decision dated May 31, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No.
01586. The Court of Appeals had affirmed with modification the Decision dated February 11, 2005 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC)of Quezon City, Branch 81, finding appellants guilty of the crime of murder in
Criminal Case No. Q-00-94135.

On January 29, 2000, the victim FULGENCIO MAGLENTE CUYSONA was stabbed to death by 2
assailants while being restrained by a third person. The 2 who stabbed the victim was identified as
brothers Roger and Danilo Perez. They were positively identified by the 2 defense witnesses namely
Ariel Bague and Rolando Gangca.

After 10 months on November 4, 2000, the brothers surrendered with their counsel Atty. Gaspar
Tagalo, Danilo Perez confessed to SPO1 San Pedro that he alone stabbed the victim to death. A warrant
of arrest was already issued at the time.

On the trial the defense also provided their witnesses. Francisco Dayola claimed that he saw
Roger Perez on his home sleeping, the cousin of Ariel Bague stabbed the victim which he did not
mention to the police and Rolando Gangca was drinking with his friends.

On February 11, 2005 the RTC found the brothers guilty of murder and sentenced to Reclusion
Perpetua and to pay 50,000PHP indemnity, 39,877PHP damages and 50,000PHP moral damages. The
brothers filed their appeal to the CA which affirmed and modified the sentence adding another
25,000PHP as exemplary damages. The petitioners then appealed the decision to the SC.

ISSUES:

1. WON the prosecution prove the guilt of appellant Roger Perez beyond reasonable doubt?
2. WON the trial court err in holding appellant Danilo Perez guilty of murder instead of homicide?

RULING:

1. Yes, the testimonies of the prosecution eyewitnesses are clear, straightforward, consistent and
categorical. It asserts that appellants failed to show any ill motive on the part of the prosecution
eyewitnesses to testify falsely against them. Even without the testimony of the doctor who
prepared the Medico-Legal Report, the prosecution was still able to prove the corpus delicti
By establishing the fact that the victim died and that such death occurred after he was stabbed
by the appellants. The proof of motive is not indispensable for a conviction and that conspiracy
may be proved by circumstantial evidence.
2. Yes, Danilo should be convicted of the crime of murder since treachery and abuse of superior
strength attended the commission of the crime.